NSFL Media Code of Ethics

[Jiggly_333]

These rules have been a long time coming, but for the longest time HO has ignored user harassment and abuse in Media. It's honestly a very simple rule and while the judgement of these points may be subjective, it should be in place at the very least.

The NSFL is a community that we all want to be happy with and have fun in. We want to attract and retain good, quality people. We do not condone harassment on any level and that includes in media.

1. Any piece of media that spends the majority of the article attacking a player's character or a user's character without the explicit consent of the targeted user will be considered harassment and will not receive payment.

2. Any piece of "offensive media" that is meant to be satire and is not explicitly marked as such will be considered harassment and will not receive payment
a. If the piece is deemed as offensive enough, the satire tag will be ignored and the piece will be judged based on its content

3. Any piece of media whose sole purpose is to comment on or incite "drama" will be viewed as a "Thunderdome" post will not receive payment.

4. A media post that is suspected of qualifying for any of the previous rules regarding Media Harassment will be flagged by the targeted user or the grader and sent to the Media Team or the Head Office to deliberate if it is worthy of punishment.

5. While the withholding of payment is the base punishment for Media Harassment, Head Office retains the right to suggest additional punishments based on the Code of Conduct should the situation deem it necessary.

[Jiggly_333]

I should also add that these rules aren't here to discourage "dropping bombshell opinions".

All it means is that you're not going to be paid for harassment. If you have a problem with someone, you can use the Thunderdome. This isn't real life where your livelihood depends on if you get paid for what you write. This is fake money. You don't need it.

[WALDO]

Shut the fuck up, boomer.

if this is too offensive i’ll remove it don’t worry

[Nokazoa]

I wanted more replies. Ping me when this gets juicy

[run_CMC]

Okay, so, Boomcheck's first article was about me. I read it as something by Colin Cowherd (if you don't know him...he makes a lot of outrageous takes about the NFL). Reading it that way, it was a nice in-universe piece actually. He did some research, and he did a ShOcKiNg BuZzFeEd ClICkBaIt take. I liked it.

Now, as for the article you linked in your post, I agree that that's unnecessary, uncalled for, inappropriate. But - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think any of the recent clickbait-y articles have gone after users? Only players? My main concern is...

who decides what's offensive? You? Me? Our new high lord Bex? When you get into policing the details of speech you enter an annoying situation (In real life I'd call it dangerous, but this is a sim league and let's be honest, not that important, so just annoying)

idk tbh I just think this is a mountain out of a mole hill. if you just don't click on the articles he writes then you're set

[Jiggly_333]

Okay, so, Boomcheck's first article was about me. I read it as something by Colin Cowherd (if you don't know him...he makes a lot of outrageous takes about the NFL). Reading it that way, it was a nice in-universe piece actually. He did some research, and he did a ShOcKiNg BuZzFeEd ClICkBaIt take. I liked it.

Now, as for the article you linked in your post, I agree that that's unnecessary, uncalled for, inappropriate. But - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think any of the recent clickbait-y articles have gone after users? Only players? My main concern is...

who decides what's offensive? You? Me? Our new high lord Bex? When you get into policing the details of speech you enter an annoying situation (In real life I'd call it dangerous, but this is a sim league and let's be honest, not that important, so just annoying)

idk tbh I just think this is a mountain out of a mole hill. if you just don't click on the articles he writes then you're set

IRL, you're right. If you don't click, they don't get money. The problem is that we allow users to make money off of articles that intentionally start shit. Even if I don't click on it, it's still going to get the same amount as if I clicked. And I'd also add that when a user identifies themselves in the character they create, an attack on the character can absolutely feel like an attack on themselves. Calling Rosie entitled is calling me entitled because I made those choices.

And for the deciding, that's what flagging it is for. It goes to a committee to decide if there's real malicious intent behind it. It's not meant to have every article pass through it and I'd hope that most articles that get to this "Ethic Committee" won't need to be punished.

You guys say "take a joke" way too much without thinking of others. In junior high I was put into a class where they drilled into my brain that empathy was something that everyone already had and I needed to learn. Turns out a lot of the people on here should've taken that class too. Putting others down isn't a joke.

[Raven]

Pweeese don't say anything mean about my pwayer qwq

[Tomasnz]

To be honest. I think the consent thing is a fair call.

I have no issue with any of the three articles so far posted by a now legendary NsFl member. But. I think when one writes a satire attack article like that you should at a minimum give notice to the user so they are in on the joke, and if possible ask permission - yes it is the character not the user, yes it is just a SIM league character, but people value different things differently and that should be respected if possible on a community based server.

I think though this needs to 100% apply to comments too - and probably already does tbf.

[TomHanks]

But - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think any of the recent clickbait-y articles have gone after users? Only players?

Ok, I'm correcting you. I have corrected this assertion I don't know how many times the last few days, but you're wrong. Plain and simple. Marcella Toriki did not choose to leave SJS, Bex did. Marcella Toriki did not choose to go to NOLA, Bex did. Calling the person that made that decision "entitled, selfish, and mentally weak" for making that decision is an attack on the person that made the decision. And that person is the user, Bex.

I get that you liked the article about you, and frankly the way it was written I didn't have a big issue with it, it was a hell of a lot nicer than the Bex article. However, had you been upset by it and made that clear, I would go for Boom just as hard, particularly given the fact that he does not care if he upsets people as evidence by doubling down and starting a new thread after learning he upset someone.

It is asinine to suggest that there is a complete disconnect between a user's decision and a player's decision and I'm really tired of people justifying harassment by pretending there is.

[iseedoug]

Just here to say I support the rules Jiggly has laid out and strongly support rules that foster a healthy community.

Be good adults and humans please.